Dry urine-diverting toilets may be used in order to collect excreta for the utilisation of nutrients. A quantitative microbial risk assessment was conducted in order to evaluate the risks of transmission of infectious disease related to the local use of faeces as a fertiliser. The human exposures evaluated included accidental ingestion of small amounts of faeces, or a mixture of faeces and soil, while emptying the storage container and applying the material in the garden, during recreational stays to the garden, and during gardening. A range of pathogens representing various groups of microorganisms was considered. Results showed that 12-months' storage before use was sufficient for the inactivation of most pathogens to acceptable levels. When working or spending time in the garden the annual risk of infection by Ascaris was still slightly above 10(-4) in these scenarios, although the incidence rate for Ascaris is very low in the population in question. Measures to further reduce the hygienic risks include longer storage, or treatment, of the faeces. The results can easily be extended to other regions with different incidence rates.

Much research and development effort is directed towards advances in municipal wastewater treatment aiming at reducing the effluent content of micro-pollutants and pathogens. The objective is to further reduce the eco-toxicity, hormone effects and pathogenic effects of the effluent. Such further polishing of the effluent, however, involves an environmental trade-off: the reduction in eco-toxicity, hormone effects, etc. will happen at the expense of increased resource- and energy consumption. Obviously, at some point of further advances, there must be an 'environmental break-even'. This trade-off was investigated using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology and based on a literature review of advanced treatment performance. The LCA evaluation comprised sand filtration, ozonation and MBRs and assessed the effect of extending existing tertiary treatment with these technologies on a variety of micro-pollutants being: heavy metals (Cd, Pb, Ni), endocrine disruptors (E2 and EE2), PAH, DEHP, and detergents (LAS & NPE). It was found, in some of the studied scenarios, that more environmental impact may be induced than removed by the advanced treatment. The study showed that for the 3 technologies, sand filtration has the best balance between prevented and induced impacts, and sand filtration proved to have a net environmental benefit under the assumptions used in the study. But the outcome of the study suggests that this is not always the case for ozonation and MBR.

As a consequence of the EU Water Framework Directive more focus is now on discharges of hazardous substances from wastewater treatment plants and sewers. Thus, many municipalities in Denmark may have to adopt to future advanced treatment technologies. This paper describes a holistic assessment, which includes technical, economical and environmental aspects. The technical and economical assessment is performed on 5 advanced treatment technologies: sand filtration, ozone treatment, UV exclusively for disinfection of pathogenic microorganisms, membrane bioreactor (MBR) and UV in combination with advanced oxidation. The technical assessment is based on 12 hazardous substances comprising heavy metals, organic pollutants, endocrine disruptors as well as pathogenic microorganisms. The environmental assessment is performed by life cycle assessment (LCA) comprising 9 of the specific hazardous substances and three advanced treatment methods; sand filtration, ozone treatment and MBR. The technical and economic assessment showed that UV solely for disinfection purposes or ozone treatment is the most advantageous advanced treatment methods if the demands are restricted to pathogenic microorganisms. In terms of sustainability, sand filtration is the most advantageous method based on the technical and environmental assessment due to the low energy consumption and high efficiency with regards to removal of heavy metals.

No abstract

No abstract